Planning board recommends denying zoning text amendment over temporary‑sign rules

The Stamford Planning Board on March 10 recommended denying a zoning text amendment referral (ZB application 22606) after heated discussion over proposed temporary‑sign standards.

Anita Mathew, principal planner, summarized the package as corrections to several regulations and a substantive addition: "The really the substantive change is addition of standards for temporary signs," she told the board, describing a permitting process, a typical three‑month allowance with one 30‑day extension, and a bond requirement for signs larger than permitted. She said the amendment would require a zoning permit, set enforcement mechanisms and, in some cases, a $5,000 deposit returnable once a sign is removed.

Board members expressed concern that the proposed requirements could suppress civic expression and impose burdens on community celebrations and construction projects. "I am generally not in favor of more regulations in the city," said Ravi Subramanian, who questioned the need for a $5,000 bond and whether the measure would burden residents and celebratory banners. Other members pointed to recent examples — staff cited a proposed banner at the Henkel Building (200 Elm Street) and a large banner that was hung on the Stamford Savings Bank during an election period — as motivating the change.

Members debated whether the planning board could or should split the package into minor editorial corrections and substantive new rules. Several members said the board could record comments endorsing grammatical and formatting edits while opposing the temporary‑sign language.

Member Vijay moved to deny the application, saying the temporary‑sign wording was inconsistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan; the motion was seconded and carried, with the board recording four in favor and one opposed. The board’s recommendation will be included in its referral letter to the zoning board, noting support for non‑controversial corrections but opposition to the temporary‑sign provisions and inviting staff to refine the rules before zoning board consideration.

The board and staff discussed timing constraints: staff said an applicant wanted to erect a large temporary banner in May, which was part of the reason for expedited consideration, but members preferred revising the regulations rather than approving the current language.

The planning board’s referral is advisory; the zoning board retains authority to adopt text changes.